Reciprocal Literacies: A Post-Qualitative Case Study of Artists’ Ephemeral and Matterless Connections Amongst Place
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meaningfully connecting with our social and natural environments becomes challenging in an increasingly digital and globalized world. Affective language and literacy practices carry potential for affirming and fostering generative entanglements amongst people and places; furthermore, such relationships are important to the well-being of the individual participants and the collective community of human and more-than-human. Beyond traditional, text-based literacies, ephemeral and matterless literacies offer modes of positive reciprocal interactions within assemblages. The literature review considers Indigenous and posthuman theories as they relate to literacy, place, and research approaches. The studied assemblages include the human and more-than-human participants of creative contexts in Southern Alberta, including a photographer, a musician/painter, an installation artist, and a performance artist. The methodological approach reflects ethico-onto-epistemological commitments to the openings and transformation Indigenous and posthumanist theories suggest. The multi-case study illuminates and sparks potentials existing in creative, cultural, and communal practices when constraints of educational institutions are removed and textless communication is emphasized. Attending to these literacies requires that literacy researchers and educators reconsider institutional concepts of literacy / literacy spaces focused on culturally biased, individual, text-based performance, and begin afresh. The study explores and describes the flows of intention and surrender that inspire and incite ephemeral and matterless communicative practices existing in adult lives and in doing so, imagines pedagogical possibilities to honour reciprocal relationship with places, in the dynamic and all-encompassing sense of the word.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".